Yeah, i figured taht... It's just that well. Currently in a small town. Rumours about me having a large penis are starting to circulate. On the one hand. . On the other... I'd rather not people think I have a large penis if I actually don't. ^^

Gold Member

Toilet paper roll test is pretty much all you need to show you're in the upper-end of girth. Even at skinnier toilet paper rolls and less-forgiving studies, you're at least 80th percentile if you cannot fit.
I ran some numbers a while ago based only on reputable studies and their median length/girth with standard deviations. A standard deviation is the average amount something varies from the average by, e.g. if a study had only 2 dicks: a 5" and a 7" long one, their average would be 6" with a standard deviation of 1". If another study had a 4" and an 8", the average is the same but the SD is 2". In short, it gives you a clear idea of how much things vary by. Personally I don't see any value in comparing a human measurement to an average if you don't know the SD.
In terms of our perception, we do tend to organize naturally by SD. Within 1 SD is usually considered a 'typical' range, and is where (usually) about 68% of people will fall. About 95% of people will be between 2 SDs, and 99.74% of people will be within 3 (eg only about 0.13% of people would be larger than 3 SDs from a mean.)
So to relate to adjectives describing how you'd perceive something, -3SDs is tiny, -2SDs is small, -1SD is smaller, 0SD is medium, +1SD is bigger, +2SDs is big, and +3SD is huge.

One thing to note is that this model breaks down somewhat at the tail-ends of the range. There are many diseases + defects that prevent genital growth, so there are a lot more guys under the -3 SDs than this would suggest. Studies also consistently show that the distribution drops off very quickly on the small end (not including those afflicted by abnormal growth), but is distributed more evenly on the longer range.
e.g. you'll see in the Lifestyles study how the graph is pretty level in the 7"-8" length range.

Ok cool thanks for info all. Yep i've done the sex toy website... general concensus is that 5+(girth) is big for a dildo. 6+(girth) is huge.

And the toilet paper rolls i use are the 5.5 ones (though they're 5.5 on the outside) inside diameter is less. Though even with a 5.5 i may not fit as i'm kinda flat penis shaped. Ie if my penis was a circle with a width of 1.9 i'd be about 6 in cirumference.

Gold Member

In terms of our perception, we do tend to organize naturally by SD. Within 1 SD is usually considered a 'typical' range, and is where (usually) about 68% of people will fall. About 95% of people will be between 2 SDs, and 99.74% of people will be within 3 (eg only about 0.13% of people would be larger than 3 SDs from a mean.)

Toilet paper roll test is pretty much all you need to show you're in the upper-end of girth. Even at skinnier toilet paper rolls and less-forgiving studies, you're at least 80th percentile if you cannot fit.
I ran some numbers a while ago based only on reputable studies and their median length/girth with standard deviations. A standard deviation is the average amount something varies from the average by, e.g. if a study had only 2 dicks: a 5" and a 7" long one, their average would be 6" with a standard deviation of 1". If another study had a 4" and an 8", the average is the same but the SD is 2". In short, it gives you a clear idea of how much things vary by. Personally I don't see any value in comparing a human measurement to an average if you don't know the SD.
In terms of our perception, we do tend to organize naturally by SD. Within 1 SD is usually considered a 'typical' range, and is where (usually) about 68% of people will fall. About 95% of people will be between 2 SDs, and 99.74% of people will be within 3 (eg only about 0.13% of people would be larger than 3 SDs from a mean.)
So to relate to adjectives describing how you'd perceive something, -3SDs is tiny, -2SDs is small, -1SD is smaller, 0SD is medium, +1SD is bigger, +2SDs is big, and +3SD is huge.

One thing to note is that this model breaks down somewhat at the tail-ends of the range. There are many diseases + defects that prevent genital growth, so there are a lot more guys under the -3 SDs than this would suggest. Studies also consistently show that the distribution drops off very quickly on the small end (not including those afflicted by abnormal growth), but is distributed more evenly on the longer range.
e.g. you'll see in the Lifestyles study how the graph is pretty level in the 7"-8" length range.

VerifiedGold Member

I think the OP is a bit average. I think i big one (according to a chick) depends on who shes fucked before you, accompanied with what she hears from her friends or sees in porn. So responses about your dick size may vary, but i personally think you're decent sized

Toilet paper roll test is pretty much all you need to show you're in the upper-end of girth. Even at skinnier toilet paper rolls and less-forgiving studies, you're at least 80th percentile if you cannot fit.
I ran some numbers a while ago based only on reputable studies and their median length/girth with standard deviations. A standard deviation is the average amount something varies from the average by, e.g. if a study had only 2 dicks: a 5" and a 7" long one, their average would be 6" with a standard deviation of 1". If another study had a 4" and an 8", the average is the same but the SD is 2". In short, it gives you a clear idea of how much things vary by. Personally I don't see any value in comparing a human measurement to an average if you don't know the SD.
In terms of our perception, we do tend to organize naturally by SD. Within 1 SD is usually considered a 'typical' range, and is where (usually) about 68% of people will fall. About 95% of people will be between 2 SDs, and 99.74% of people will be within 3 (eg only about 0.13% of people would be larger than 3 SDs from a mean.)
So to relate to adjectives describing how you'd perceive something, -3SDs is tiny, -2SDs is small, -1SD is smaller, 0SD is medium, +1SD is bigger, +2SDs is big, and +3SD is huge.

One thing to note is that this model breaks down somewhat at the tail-ends of the range. There are many diseases + defects that prevent genital growth, so there are a lot more guys under the -3 SDs than this would suggest. Studies also consistently show that the distribution drops off very quickly on the small end (not including those afflicted by abnormal growth), but is distributed more evenly on the longer range.
e.g. you'll see in the Lifestyles study how the graph is pretty level in the 7"-8" length range.